U.S. Military Targets Southeast Colorado Part 2

Between 1980 and
2000, Colorado lost 1.5 million acres of ranchland. The 1960s
per-acre price went from "less than $200" to thousands per
acre.1 Land
doesn't spontaneously increase in value but is a function of
calculated inflation (the hidden tax) - driven by sudden surpluses
of Federal Reserve Notes that decrease the value of currency
already in circulation while escalating all prices.

Evidenced by the acreage figures cited in part one of this
multi-part article, the Pentagon does not "need" more land. The
army's proposed expansion would give them a total of 2, 577,304
acres (thousand square miles), just at the Piñon Canyon
Manuever Site, as shown on the map or this map. The federal government owns more than 5.1 million
acres classified as "vacant." U.S. land dedicated to military
purposes equals 2.4 percent. U.S. land owned by the federal
government, as of September 30, 2004, is 653,299,090.2 acres or
28.8 percent of the country. Most of Nevada, 84.5 percent, is owned
by the federal government.2

Obviously, land is not the issue. It is however, a huge issue to
the ranchers and is fundamental to their livelihood. If their land
is seized, ranchers cannot pack up their cows and move elsewhere.
Ranchers still become emotional when they reflect on the first and
supposedly the last time that the army "took" their property, lands
that had belonged to families for generations. Courts have
distorted the law, and have become "instrument[s] of plunder,"
seizing land from the citizens they have pledged to protect.3 Given these
desperate circumstances, "between 2000 and 2004, 19 percent of
Colorado farm and ranch deaths were reported as suicides."4

The army's Colorado land grab, a scheme to cleanse the area, is
merely the tip of the globalist iceberg which concerns, not only
ranchers, but the entire middle class. The army, literally acting
against American citizens, is not alone but merely the first
offense - the patriotism ploy! Others are involved - smug, obedient
bureaucrats, environmentalists and tax-exempt foundations.

Investigative Congressional committees attempted to halt the
powerful influence exerted by private foundations (4,162 of them in
1951).5
Foundations have no voters, no clientele, and no investors. They
enable the elite to reshape civilization using billions of
tax-exempt dollars. Congressman Cox's investigation, starting in
1952, failed as most of the witnesses were "officers and trustees
of large foundations" and their associates. Cox unexpectedly fell
"gravely ill during the investigation and died before a report
could be filed." The Reece Committee, facing obstacle after
obstacle, resumed the investigation with Norman Dodd as research director. Almost immediately,
instructions from a complicit "White House" to "kill the committee"
ended all inquiries.6

In June 1998, Ron Arnold, then executive vice-president of the
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise gave congressional
testimony that resulted in a detailed report entitled Battered
Communities, followed up by a comprehensively-researched book
- Undue Influence. Arnold confirmed "Rural communities
are suffering unprecedented social and economic losses. All
segments of natural resource goods production - water development,
farming, ranching, mining, petroleum, timber, fishing,
transportation, and manufacturing projects - are being
systematically attacked, thwarted, and eradicated. Natural resource
production and related jobs are being forced offshore."7

In The Law, Bastiat stated: "Life, faculties,
production - in other words, individuality, liberty, property -
this is man."8 "Man can live and satisfy his wants only
by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties
to natural resources. This process is the origin of
property."9
In addition to land-seizure concerns, ranchers are at the mercy of
huge monopolies which control the market and manipulate cattle
prices without the expense of owning production. They sometimes
finance a few "large feedlot owners who lease ranches and run
cattle for them," a way of controlling prices through "captive
supply." Independent ranchers, with ever-increasing overhead, get
less and less of every retail dollar. Justifiable resistance to
this corporatism could result in retaliation and economic ruin, an
object lesson to silence other ranchers.10

Price fixing and profit manipulation, as John D. Rockefeller
discovered, was best achieved by refining and selling oil rather
than extracting it from the ground. Skilled carpenters, factory
workers, ranchers, farmers, and meatpacking workers labor for
decreasing returns while monopoly capitalists, comfortable in
luxurious boardrooms, control markets to enhance their personal
fortunes without loyalties or consideration for America's economy.
Consider construction - individuals cut lumber, assemble fixtures,
pour cement, install a roof, paint and together build a house. Who
benefits the most? Not the producers - rather the
fractional-reserve banker who extorts usury on a paper-only loan.

Congressional leaders, financial benefactors of corporatism, broke
up the Chicago-based beef trust (Armour, Cudahy, Morris, Swift and
Wilson) through the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 - an example
of Hegelian Dialectics. Create a crisis and then fix it with
pre-determined government regulations that typically only burdens
small business firms. Reasonable competition existed until Reagan's
Administration.

In 1972, a 200 member Business Roundtable, through the merging of the March
Group, the Construction Users Anti-Inflation Roundtable and the
Labor Law Study Committee, was established. The group was comprised
of the heads of major industrial corporations, commercial banks,
insurance companies, the largest retailers, and the biggest
transportation and utility companies. This forum of corporations
dismissed their "competitive differences" to arrive at a "consensus
on issues of social and economic policy for America." Members of
this elite group rejected national interests in favor of the
prospective profits of economic globalization. Members organized
"aggressive campaigns" to gain political support for their agenda.
They enrolled 2,300 U.S. corporations in their newly-created front
organization, USA*NAFTA. They furtively promoted the trade
agreement despite widespread opposition.11

The Roundtable "bombarded Americans" with assurances, editorials,
news releases, editorials and radio and television commentaries
claiming that NAFTA would prove beneficial, stop Mexican
immigration, provide high-paying jobs and raise environmental
standards. "Roundtable members enjoyed privileged access to the
NAFTA negotiation process through representation on advisory
committees to the U.S. trade representative." NAFTA went into
effect on January 1, 1994. However, during the prior twelve years,
nine Roundtable corporations had already outsourced about 180,000
jobs to Mexico.12

Public Relations firms produced "facts," opinion pieces, expert
analyses, and managed public polls, telephone solicitation, direct
mail, and created "citizen" advocacy groups and
"public-image-building campaigns for their corporate clients. One
firm, Burson Marsteller, enjoyed net billings in 1992 of $204
million. "The top fifty public relations firms billed over $1.7
billion in 1991." Public relations employees, who outnumber news
reporters, manipulate the news "to serve the interests of paying
clients." By 1990, almost 40 percent of the news originated from
public-relations press releases.13 Public Relations firms continue to
influence public opinion according to who purchases their unique
services.

Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, Inc. (hereafter Booz Allen),14 a public
relations firm has been paid $500,000 a year for their Piñon
Canyon "expansion planning" including managing invitation-only
meetings with southern Colorado residents. Booz Allen,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia, has clients such as the Air
Force, Federal Transit Administration, Labor Department, the Navy
and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Ex-CIA director
and Rhodes Scholar, James Woolsey, became Vice President of Booz
Allen on July 15th, 2002."15 He served as counsel for major
corporations in both commercial arbitrations and the negotiation of
joint ventures and other agreements. Woolsey is one of the signers
of the January 26, 1998 Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
letter to Clinton urging military action against Iraq.
Dov S. Zakheim (CFR), Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to
March 10, 2004 also became a vice president at Booz Allen on May 6,
2004. This was after he was unable to explain the loss of $1
trillion dollars at the Pentagon (in addition to the $2.3 trillion
on September 10, 2001).1617 PNAC, promoters of American imperialism
and "Full-spectrum" dominance, is funded by the Sarah Scaife
Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.

The expanding cozy relationship, known as "contract bureaucracy,"
between the federal government and Booz Allen began with the Nixon
administration. In 1969 Donald Rumsfeld was appointed as director
of the Office of Economic Opportunity with Dick Cheney as his
assistant. Rumsfeld brought in Booz Allen to reorganize the agency.
The government uses contractors for policy advice and management
services, a taxpayer-supported, multibillion-dollar giveaway to
private management consultants, experts and think tanks.18

Reagan, and his globalist handler/vice president G. H. W. Bush,
ignored anti-trust legislation and allowed corporate mergers to
devour smaller firms. In 1970, the top four meatpacking firms
slaughtered about 21% of the nation's beef. By 2000, ConAgra, Iowa
Beef Processors (IBP, nation's largest red meat producer), Excel
Corporation and National Beef (fourth largest processor)
slaughtered about 84% of the nation's cattle and consequently
controlled prices.19 Since 1979, Excel Corporation has been a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Cargill, infamous for animal
abuse.20

Many meatpacking plants have returned to the exploitative,
dangerous conditions described in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Wages, once protected by organized
labor, have plummeted. By 1983, worker's wages "fell below the
average U.S. manufacturing wage" and had further declined by 25
percent in 2002. Immigrants, willing to work for less, have
replaced many middle class laborers. Rather than outsourcing labor
to Third World countries, the meat and poultry industries are
importing Third World laborers and "reproducing developing country
employment conditions here."21 Transnational corporations enhance their
profits by exploiting labor and sales elsewhere. Earlier this year,
Tyson Foods announced that they were "forming a joint venture with
Jiangsu Jinghai Poultry Industry Group Co. Ltd., to raise, process
and sell chickens in east China under the Tyson brand name. Terms
of the agreement were not disclosed, but Tyson will own 70 percent
of the venture."22

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush authorized an eligibility
verification pilot program for foreign laborers with nine
participating companies. Clinton expanded this program in 1995 to
the "Basic Pilot" program with 1,000 employers.23 Non-enforcement
of immigration laws allowed IBP and other corporations to "import"
cheap labor. The Basic Pilot program, now complete with federal database, was "designed to help big employers
of foreign labor." Additionally, Clinton's "Bosnian refugee
resettlement efforts" supplied 6,000 refugees to IBP in Waterloo,
Iowa. A total of 80,000 Balkan refugees settled in the Midwest.
Bombing foreign countries to smithereens evidently provides cheap
labor to corporate America.24

Tyson Foods targeted competitor, Hudson Foods, but Hudson wasn't
serious about selling until Clinton's Department of Agriculture
swat team descended on Hudson Foods with a beef recall (August 12,
1997). The USDA illegally closed a plant and destroyed their
business. Then Tyson Foods, a huge Clinton contributor, purchased
Hudson's chicken operation at a fire-sale price. "Tyson's buyout
bid" was an offer Hudson couldn't refuse. That purchase
complemented "Tyson's distribution and production system." IBP, "a
major supplier to the Hudson," bought the beef operation.25 By 2001, Tyson,
the world's largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and
pork combined, won the bidding war against Smithfield, to purchase
IBP, the nation's largest beef producer.26 A Smithfield purchase would
have encountered more "regulatory delays" than the Tyson
deal.27

John Munsell, a small businessman and agricultural whistle-blower,
discovered E.coli in an order of ConAgra hamburger and informed the
USDA which had an "aggressive see-no-evil, non-interference policy"
with powerful agribusiness corporations who prefer and lobby for
self-regulation. Rather than investigating ConAgra, the USDA shut
down Munsell's operation for four months and investigated his
business.28
The beef, 19 million pounds, was recalled in July 2002. In
September 2002, ConAgra began transferring their meatpacking
operation to HM Capital Partners LLC, a Dallas-based private
(corporate raider) equity firm owned by Hicks, Muse, Tate and
Furst, and Booth Creek Management Corporation becoming the second
largest processor of beef and pork in the world. The deal was
completed in 2004; the resulting joint venture was called Swift
& Company. Then in July 2007, Swift & Company was purchased
by JBS, S.A., the acronym of the founder, José Batista
Sobrinho. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. brokered the massive
transaction.29 JBS is acquiring National Beef Packing
and Smithfield Foods' - No. 3 and 4 of the five largest beef
companies in the United States. JBS will then control 10 percent of
the world's beef supplies with only two major U.S. competitors -
Tyson and Cargill.30

Beef trade, by JBS Swift & Company, to South Korea will resume
in May 2008 after a four-year ban due to the 2003 mad-cow scare
which closed most Asian doors to U.S. beef. JBS intends to
penetrate global markets anywhere they can - Asia, Russia and
elsewhere.31

About the Author

Deanna Spingola has been a quilt designer and is
the author of two books. She has traveled extensively teaching and
lecturing on her unique methods. She has always been an avid reader
of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than entertain. She
is active in family history research and lectures on that topic.
Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center.
She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current
government policies, particularly as they relate to the
Constitution. Deanna's Web
Site